brisbanetimes.com.au urban affairs reporter and blogger

It may be important to think of divorce before getting married. Photo: Paul Jones

Divorce can add a decade to your working life, according to a new study from an Australian super fund.

In a recent research report titled Untying the Knot, Suncorp Superannuation asked married and divorced people about retirement ages and found that while both groups were on par when it came to ideal retirement ages, there was a big gap when they had to be realistic.

Married couples said retirement would be possible by the time they were 65, however divorcees said retirement would be unrealistic until the age of 75.

The report also used figures relating to the average age of divorce from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to demonstrate the very different financial positions of male and female divorcees.

Advertisement

Most men divorce when they are 45 years old and have about $128,000 in super, while most women divorce at 42 with $42,000.

I’ll let you cogitate on that, and the vested interests of the report’s authors, for a wee moment before we continue.

Now.

Divorce. It happens. And it hurts. Divorce hurts in many different ways. It may be important to think of this before getting married.

But is it a good idea? Is it smart to stop and think about things falling apart before building something up? Is it a good idea to contemplate the demise of a romance before taking it all the way, or will you simply kick-off some sort of negative, self-fulfilling prophecy of doom?

A lot of couples shirk the hard stuff for fear it will ruin things. I sometimes wonder whether this is a sign the foundations of their relationship are shaky at best. Surely strength comes from facing up to brutal truth, rather than stuffing cowardly fingers in ear and shrieking "cant-hear-you" in unison?

Of course, there’s always the likelihood that one person in a partnership may be better equipped to have the conversation than the other. This is an imbalance, but the difference is not always insurmountable.

For we all know that romances work when people agree to support each other, and help each other learn and grow. It could simply be that some help through what would be a difficult conversation for anyone to have is necessary.

If it’s a conversation that needs to be had at all, that is.

Is it? Is talk of divorce before ‘I do’ going to strengthen or weaken your relationship?

Certainly there are practical benefits. Women especially need to wise-up when it comes to finances, and their financial security within relationships. The old idea women should rely solely on their husband to sustain themselves in perpetuity is partly responsible for the great many poor old ladies struggling to pay the bills as they age.

And while that idea is slowly dying, there’s no use pretending all things are equal. Women still earn less than men in Australia. Women are still less proficient in the language of finance and less able to adopt a ‘like a man’ approach to money (read: More likely to take on unnecessary responsibility/charge their decisions with emotion, not reason).

This is partly why I’m pro-pre-nup. It’s not a harbinger of doom, in my books, but simply a sensible document related to a bunch of other documents you’re about to sign, either literally through marriage or by default if you’re de facto.

But the cost of divorce isn’t just financial. Divorce also rips apart families, and causes significant emotional trauma for all parties involved, especially when children are involved. I believe these are other reasons why it might be a good idea to discuss divorce before marriage, if only to underscore the sheer depth of your feeling for one another, and willingness to commit, even in the face of possible devastation.

158 comments

Maybe I was naive, but wondering about how I might cope financially in case of divorce never even crossed my mind when I was planning my wedding (25 years ago - maybe times have changed). I just assumed it was highly unlikely I would get divorced and even if by some remote chance I did, I felt certain that I would cope. I had no idea what the divorce statistics were, nor did it cross my mind to find out. Ignorance is bliss, maybe. :) Pre-nups for people with a lot of money and property before marriage are probably a good idea, but for your average couple who get married with similar assets I think it shouldn't be necessary.

Commenter

MO4

Date and time

July 09, 2013, 10:51PM

@MO4, oh oh, you going to get in trouble with the first post police.Anyhow, for people with similar assets it’s only necessary if they are substantial yet there is a significant discrepancy in current income, alternatively it’s actually a useless piece of paper.

Commenter

Victorious Painter

Date and time

July 10, 2013, 9:11AM

@ MO4

I'm in the same boat as you on this one.

40 something years ago, divorce was ever only for the rich; the proceedings were lengthy, costly and nasty.

For me, why undermine the love and infatuation that is pre-marriage with thoughts of doom and gloom?

I also think that if one approaches marriage as a 'forever' concept, that concept assists in mitigating any desire to split (later down the track). The alternative (as Kate imbues) is that one sets up a default position and that would make it conceptually easier to divorce.

As for a pre-nup, Kate is living in fairyland. She aint mega rich, and from the snippets we've been told, neither is he.

Should Kate enter marriage, and a divorce eventuates, the Family Court will dictate that the division of the shared assets will be divided according to need, but the basis will always be from a 50/50 split (see also next para).

Kate, there is a simple answer to why men exit a marriage with more Super than women. It's called a house/home. Should you do research on current divorce proceedings (ie. after the Howard inclusions), I suggest you'll find that assets are divided somewhere between 60/40 to 50/50. Where the woman with children retains custody, she will get something like 60% of the combined assets. Ordinarily, she will also retain occupancy of the family home and he will forego his portion of that asset in favour of Super retention.

Kate, think and feel lovingly and positively and give the nasty D word the flick. If it happens, worry about it then.

Cheers

Commenter

Dalliance

Date and time

July 10, 2013, 9:12AM

@Dalliance I am not so sure about what you say. We travel in our caravan and we meet divorced men on the road. For many of them late term divorce is devastating. In many cases she gets the house and then a big swag of the super. He is left with a car and a caravan and a super payout which has been chopped to pieces. So many men do not far very well at all from my observations. They are left paupers after a lifetime of work.

Commenter

Bev

Date and time

July 10, 2013, 9:48AM

Kate

You wrote...

"there’s no use pretending all things are equal. Women still earn less than men in Australia. Women are still less proficient in the language of finance and less able to adopt a ‘like a man’ approach to money (read: More likely to take on unnecessary responsibility/charge their decisions with emotion, not reason)."

What I write here could easily be taken as chauvenism. I'd prefer it be accepted as reality.

Aside from award wages, there is no such thing as fairness in employment conditions &/or wages. Those that can corner an advantage are in a position to leverage more than others. On this, go ask people like Gail Kelly, Carolyn Creswell, Janine Allis, Margot Spalding, Diana Williams,Denise Goldsworthy, Naomi Simson, Maggie Beer, Kristina Karlsson, Kate McKenzie and Lee De Winton to name but just a few who have succeeded at cornering an advantage.

The approach you have adopted is to use statistics to argue that women overall receive less income so are thus less advantaged.

There is no doubt that ABS figures support this view. However...

Women enjoy an attribute denied males - motherhood. And, for many families, his single income while the kids are in the formative years is preferred. That statistically reduces the collective income for women.

The issue then is whether women are induced against their preference to be stay-at-home, or it is an attribute they prefer. I suggest the latter (but I may be wrong).

Please don't play the 'pity us' card. It neither has factual merit, nor does it look good.

Cheers

Commenter

Dalliance plus some

Date and time

July 10, 2013, 10:09AM

Ithink times have changed, they always do!Thats the thing about time, it always rolls on ,forward.Certainly ,regardless of assetts ,which is a consideration,divorce should be discussed,just as everything should be discussed with anyone you are contemplating making a traditionally lifetime commitment to ,and raising children with ,should.Every thing.

Commenter

Kane

Date and time

July 10, 2013, 10:16AM

Dalliance - We obviously moved in different circles. The divorce boom of the 70s left every single on of my friends visiting their fathers every second weekend. Every single one of them. This lead to the trend I see now that all of us consider marriage a "forever" concept. No ifs, no buts. I'd like to think that there has been a positive flow on from those days and times have indeed changed. We are different men to our fathers who, to give them their due credit, meant every bit as well as we do.

Commenter

JTO

Date and time

July 10, 2013, 11:03AM

@Dalliance Plus SomeOf course, the unequal opportunity to make a choice is the elephant in the room.(Not to say that a choice is ALWAYS available).Unequal pay? Unequal choices? Modern society. Conservative expectations. Variables.Well written post.

Commenter

suburban dad

Date and time

July 10, 2013, 11:08AM

MO4, notice a pattern here?. The last mb 5 blogs. Not so much pre-wedding jitters but cold feet doubts. We could go analytical but she can do that herself. She’s a big girl now. I’ll still leave it as, If she wants to marry, it would need be with who she needs.

Commenter

Dave

Date and time

July 10, 2013, 11:16AM

@ Bev

I agree that divorce will never be equal. Nor will the outcomes ever be rational (at least to the party feeling aggrieved).

The hardest part (from my observations) is that one or both partners get acrimonious and matters rarely return to normal thereafter. Given that scenario, kids are often used as 'tools' to spite the other.

As for the wandering nomads, I've also met a few. Poor souls. At best they are stupid, at worst they are snivelling idiots.

All too many choose to go wandering than work and have part of their income go to support their kids. They'd rather deny their kids some of their money than have the money funnelled through the hands of their former partner.

And, these folk whinge they were robbed!!!

- - -

On the topic that kate raised today, perhaps a better device than a pre-nup would be an agreement on how each will act / comminicate / share should the relationship sour.

As VP points out, one can get through the situation. But, as others suggest, it's all too hard.

For mine, the break-up often results from the two choosing to be unable or unwilling to adequately and effectively communicate. I suggest 'choose' as it is a choice.